16. metatheory in comparative, international, and development ...

SHENG YAO CHENG, W. JAMES JACOB, AND POCHANG CHEN

16. METATHEORY IN COMPARATIVE, INTERNATIONAL, AND DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION Dialectics Between the East and West and Other Perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Changes in travel, communication, and technology have continuously brought our world closer together. These changes have escalated in recent centuries and especially in the latter-part of the twentieth century and continue at a rapid pace at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Communicable diseases that were at one time contained within geographic regions are now able to travel at the speed of a single passenger to almost any place on the earth within a 24-hour time period. The traditional definition of war has also transitioned from battles fought against militias to include international terrorism. The academic field of education continues to adjust to meet the dynamic needs of these rapid changes across the earth. Comparative, international, and development education (CIDE) and research are shaped by global history, culture, economy, and social context changes. CIDE research has kept pace with the many changes over the past century. The theoretical underpinnings of CIDE research have also required similar changes to explain many education phenomena. Social theories have undergone a number of changes over time. Contemporary mainstream CIDE research is based largely on a Western theoretical foundation but other theoretical perspectives can add to this legacy (Phillips and Schweisfurth 2008). In this article, we revisit two CIDE models that can be used by researchers to emphasize how important it is to take an eclectic stance to determine which theory/ies and policy/ies are most appropriate to meet dynamic needs and various education contexts. A review of “classical” comparative education literature emphasizes the reliance of most research products on “traditional” Western epistemology and largely ignores the importance of Eastern and other theoretical perspectives. We begin by introducing differing theoretical perspectives based on geography, economy, and theory. Third, we introduce the Tai-Ji Model as an essential tool for CIDE researchers in selecting an appropriate theory and research method for a given study or project. The Education Policy Analysis Model (EPAM) is also introduced as a framework for advancing educational reform efforts based on equity and with an end goal toward excellence. The article concludes with a discussion of how both the Tai-Ji Model and EPAM can serve policy makers,

John C. Weidman, W. James Jacob (eds.), Beyond the Comparative: Advancing Theory and Its Application to Practice, 295–314. © 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

S.Y. CHENG, W.J. JACOB, AND P. CHEN

government planners, scholars, graduate students, and educators in their ongoing CIDE research. We define metatheory as an “overarching theory or framework used to analyze theoretical systems” (Jacob and Cheng 2005, 227). A metatheory is comprised of multiple theories that are linked together by a common political concept or framework. Metatheories can be found at local and global levels and often transcend boundaries that delimit singular theoretical concepts or ideologies. We argue that CIDE encompasses multiple theoretical perspectives and paradigms. These theoretical perspectives are increasing in number and have evolved over time based on changes in culture, context, political situation, and economics. The CIDE theoretical landscape has been categorized and mapped in the past; we aim to add to this list of previous literature by emphasizing that one of the primary strengths of CIDE “lies in its multi-theoretical reservoir. This depth allows researchers to draw from a broad theoretical base, necessary to analyze a number of complex and evolving contemporary issues” (p. 227). We also advocate that theory creation in CIDE is an ongoing process that builds upon the rich foundation of previous educators who advocated various global standpoint theoretical perspectives. In this regard we support Val D. Rust’s (2004) assertion that CIDE research hinges on the need for inclusion of a variety of research methods, approaches, and theories. No single theoretical perspective reigns supreme in the CIDE research literature. DIFFERING CIDE PERSPECTIVES BASED ON GEOGRAPHY, ECONOMY, AND THEORY

Geographic delimitations relating to national boundaries are often social constructions established to meet the needs of those who are in “power” to enforce the boundaries (Jacob and Ouattara 2009). Border disputes still exist between countries and in some cases within nation states. Often boundaries are established on economic interests in order to maintain political dominance or hegemonic clout. Trade agreements such as the China-ASEAN Free Trade Area, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) often provide benefits to some countries or regions while limiting trade from others. Theories are often established based on the paradigmatic philosophies that shape the social sciences including CIDE research. In this section we provide definitions of several dialectical perspectives that define a significant portion of historical and contemporary CIDE research. These perspectives highlight comparisons and differences that inevitably exist between dialectical notions of East versus West, North versus South, and developed versus developing countries. In addition to their dialectic counterpart terms, often CIDE researchers use the terms West, North and developed countries interchangeably. Others hold firm to only using one “politically correct” dialectic term based largely on a theoretical standpoint. It is beyond the scope of this article to determine which set of dialectic terms is most appropriate; rather we strive to outline common uses of

296

METATHEORY IN CIDE

these terms as a background to the rest of our article that focuses on metatheory in CIDE research. East versus West The West derives its name primarily from influential thinkers who transitioned philosophical thought and the philosophical paradigms of their day and resided primarily in Europe. Leading philosophers and thinkers who influenced the daily philosophy included Pythagoras, Socrates, Aristotle, Epictetus, Roger Bacon, Galileo Galilei, John Locke, Adam Smith, and Immanuel Kant. Later Western thinkers who influenced international education included Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, John Dewey, Frank Charles Laubach, Michel Foucault, Karl Popper, John Rawls, Paulo Freire, and James Coleman. The East has its own long line of prestigious thinkers that have helped shape the CIDE landscape. These thinkers include Siddhartha Gautama, Laozi, Confucius, and Sun Yat-Sen. With the rise of global colonialism based largely in Western Europe, the definition of West and Western thought underwent further revision to include the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Western cartographers often positioned Western Europe in the center of global maps and bisected Asia into the Near East and Far East. This cartographic denotation of Asia as East positioned it in an opposite to the West. East to those who live in Japan refers to locations on the eastern line of the Pacific Rim. Devote Christians look to the Mount of Olives as the future location of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Mount of Olives lies in a general eastern direction from where most traditional Christians resided in Europe, and afterwards in North and South America. Yet for Christians residing in India, Australia, or Vietnam, the most likely direction toward the Mount of Olives is in a general western direction. Muslims face Mecca when they pray, but many Westerners believe that the Muslims face east merely because their Muslim friends pray in a general eastern direction when living in Western Europe or North America. What constitutes “East” versus “West” is also arbitrary and hinges upon the point of view of each CIDE researcher. Much like the geographic dialectic between East and West, often philosophical thought between East and West were at odds or opposition with each other as well. No other Eastern philosopher contributed more to education than Confucius whose contributions offer a counter perspective to much of the Western-dominated theoretical perspectives. Confucius has been regarded as a prominent teacher and education researcher in history. He saw education is the key developer and stabilizer of society. To desire to do right and to seek what is good would give a person a little reputation but would not enable him to influence the masses. To associate with the wise and able, and to welcome those who come from distant countries may enable a person to influence the masses but would not necessarily enable him to civilize the people. The only solution for an individual to civilize the people and establish good social customs is through education. Compared with Western ideas of education, we can juxtapose it with 297

S.Y. CHENG, W.J. JACOB, AND P. CHEN

transformation orientation vs. equilibrium orientation and idealist-subjectivist orientation vs. realist-objectivist orientation. Confucius taught that only through education does one come to be dissatisfied with his own knowledge, and only through teaching others does one come to realize the uncomfortable inadequacy of his knowledge. Being unsatisfied with his own knowledge, one then realizes that the trouble lies with him and realizing the uncomfortable inadequacy of his knowledge, one then feels stimulated to improve himself. This philosophy supports the notion that the processes of teaching and learning stimulate one another. That is the meaning of the passage in the Advice to Fu Yueh which says, “Teaching is half of learning.” The Eastern educational concepts above could correspond directly to critical, human capital, and functionalist theories. Confucius identifies four characteristics of ideal teachers. First, he emphasized prevention, or preventing bad habits before they are given a chance to arise. Second, timeliness or giving students information as soon as they are ready for it. Third, order or teaching subjects in proper sequence. Fourth, mutual stimulation or letting the students admire the excellence of other students (Lin 2009, p. 487). These four characteristics ensure the success of education. Even though Confucian education ideology originated several thousand years ago, the theories have significant relevance to CIDE research today. North versus South East versus West leaves out much of the global terrain and other perspectives or concepts help fill this void. One such perspective is the North-South dialectic where the North relates to more affluent countries predominantly in Europe and North America. Nations in the South include those which are less affluent and that are still in the process of economic development and transition (UNESCO 2001; Peters 2009). The South provides a voice to those from Africa, Latin America, and other less affluent nations and regions (Mbabuike 2004). There are increasing South-South partnerships in education research that provide countries of the South opportunities to collaborate together and establish their own theoretical perspectives (World Bank 2009). North-North relationships also exist that provide similar opportunities to those from more affluent countries in Europe and North America. Most CIDE research endeavors are based on North-to-South international collaborations that include co-researchers from both affluent and less affluent countries. South-South partnerships are rare but increasing (Cronin 2008; Jacobsen 2009). Often funding drives these dialectic CIDE research relationships between North and South collaborators, which frequently provide researchers from North countries opportunities to dominate or shape the theoretical debate. Developed versus Developing Based primarily on an economic theoretical perspective, the terms developed and developing countries are conceived from the notion that countries can evolve, 298

METATHEORY IN CIDE

transition or “develop” from an inferior state to one that is more advanced or economically prosperous. Walt W. Rostow (1960) and other functionalists were prominent in advancing the dialectical relationship between advanced, transitioning, and traditional societies or countries (see also Inkeles and Holsinger 1973; Ish-Shalom 2006). The terms developed and developing countries became especially prominent toward the end of the Cold War Era rendering the terms first, second, and third-world countries obsolete. The World Trade Organization (WTO) allows each member country to selfannounce whether they are a developed or developing country, but there are certain advantages linked to a developing country status. A third term used by WTO and other UN agencies includes least-developed countries which provide even greater flexibility and advantages in international trade agreements (United Nations Population Division [UNPD] 2009). UNPD designates all countries in Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States as the more developed countries. They also provide definitions for less-developed and leastdeveloped countries. What constitutes a developed versus a developing country is determined in the eyes of the beholder, researcher, policy maker, or UN officer. Low- and middleincome countries are often grouped in the category of developing countries. Newly industrialized countries (NICs)—including Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC)—are often grouped in developing country status but are fast becoming global leaders in trade and human resource production powerhouses. Still the education disparities that exist between developed, developing, and leastdeveloped countries are significant. This inequality in education is highlighted by global rankings of higher education institutions and the number of top academic journals in most fields, both published in English and located in so-called developed countries (Maddison 1983; UNESCO 1995; Holsinger and Jacob 2009; Mok 2010). The Role of Cartography in Comparative, International, and Development Education Perhaps no contemporary CIDE scholar has influenced the categorizing of CIDE metatheory more than Rolland G. Paulston. With an academic background in geography, Paulston focused his work during the final stage of his career on mapping theories in comparative education. In his book Social Cartography, Paulston set the stage for CIDE scholars to examine theory from a variety of visual perspectives and encouraged seasoned and young scholars alike to embark on a journey of theory creation (Rust 1996; Stromquist 1996; Chapter 1 of this volume). Thinking outside of the box or beyond theoretical paradigms was at the root of Paulston’s latter works (see for instance Paulston 1999, 2000; Chapter 1) and he often encouraged CIDE scholars to expand their theoretical horizon. Regardless of the perspective, we argue scholars should take an eclectic theoretical stance that provides CIDE researchers with the ability to choose an existing theory (or set of theories) depending on the relevant needs or topic of 299

S.Y. CHENG, W.J. JACOB, AND P. CHEN

study associated with local, national, and international contexts (Jacob and Cheng 2005; Jacob and Holsinger 2009). The next section introduces two theoretical models developed and adapted to the dynamic contexts in CIDE research. TAI-JI MODEL

Almost four thousand years age, Chinese philosopher Fu-Xi created a model to interpret the evolution of the universe, and he called it Tai-Ji (Shen et al., 1988). Along with the very beginning of Tai-Ji, Supreme Ultimate, Fu-Xi indicates Yin and Yang are two fundamental elements in the universe (Zhang and Ryden 2002). Similar to the traditional Western binary idea, after Fu-Xi observed the movement of the sun, moon, and stars for more than 40 years, he interpreted the regulation of life and nature with two dichotomous characters: Yin and Yang. Yin means the dark side, the moon, female, and negative; Yang refers to the light side, the sun, male, and positive. To figure out the multifaceted dynamics and complications of real life, Fu-Xi continued to interpret Tai-Ji as a combination of four semi-sectors including Yin, Yang, pre-Yin, and pre-Yang. Pre-Yin is located in the era of Yang but represents the possibility of Yin. Following the same vein, pre-Yang is situated in the area of Yin but represents the appearance of Yang. There are no obvious borders between Yin and Yang, and no absolute direction between them. Unlike the Western traditional binary, Tai-Ji emphasizes the importance of continuous, bordercrossing, and dynamic dimensions. For instance, when people see the sun at noon they know that this constitutes day and not night. From a global perspective, you would see that when it is day in the Western hemisphere it is night in the Eastern hemisphere. There are similar dichotomies portrayed throughout the universe. The Tai-Ji concept has significance to social theory and education. Multiple perspectives are often used to examine the same educational phenomenon, depending on the standpoint of the policy maker, researcher, participant, teacher, student, or parent of student. With multiple ways of seeing the world or educational phenomena, there are also often multiple social theories that undergird these phenomena. The Tai-Ji Model was first introduced in relation to CIDE research and theory in W. James Jacob and Sheng Yao Cheng (2005), recognizing that no singular theory or perspective dominates in CIDE (see Figure 16.1). Based on a non-linear framework, the Tai-Ji Model has the ability to span time, space, and theoretical paradigms. Its strength lies in its ability to adapt to the need of the research/study, depending on the context of a given situation or country. The Tai-Ji Model supports an eclectic approach to CIDE studies in that one, two, or several theoretical approaches may be appropriate for a given study, depending on the context and nature of the research being conducted. Different or even multiple theoretical approaches may be appropriate. If you select a given theoretical perspective, it may be important to supplement this with additional points of view, thus maximizing the effect of synergistic perspectives. (249) 300

METATHEORY IN CIDE

The Tai-Ji Model serves as a filter mechanism in determining which theory or research method is appropriate to use in a given CIDE study, policy document, or geographic or cultural context. For instance, if a researcher were examining higher education quality assurance in the Middle East, she may want to include one or more functionalist theories that would help determine how Middle Eastern universities operationalize the strategic planning process. Another scholar may examine the same topic from a critical theory framework offering a countertheoretical balance to the previous study.

Figure 16.1. Tai-Ji Model for Framing Comparative, International, and Development Education. Source: Reprinted from Jacob and Cheng (2005, 248), with permission from Elsevier.

The Tai-Ji Model is also an ideal theoretical framework and research methods filtering mechanism for graduate students determining which theory/ies and research method/s to use to guide their thesis and doctoral research. Using the TaiJi Model in the theoretical selection process of one’s own research can be done similarly to using a Venn diagram to hone in on the most appropriate theory/ies for the study’s topical focus. For instance, if a student was interested in applying critical race theory (CRT) in examining issues of equity and access to higher education of Native Americans, the Tai-Ji Model could be used to help the student identify alternative perspectives that would either compliment or provide an alternative perspective to CRT. Alternative theoretical perspectives that could be examined in the same dissertation may include human capital, rational choice, or 301

S.Y. CHENG, W.J. JACOB, AND P. CHEN

dependency theory. Other theories the scholar may consider that are more closely associated with a radical humanist perspective include feminist, Freirian, or poststructuralist theory. Unlike the traditional dualism in the Western culture, the Tai-Ji Model pays more attention to interactive, dynamic, and border-crossing processes. The methodology is dynamic, providing an avenue for both theory selection based upon need and theory generation where opportunities demand a new way of answering questions to educational phenomena (see Figures 16.2 and 16.3).

Figure 16.2. Example of Using the Tai-Ji Model to Select an Appropriate Theory for Graduate Research: Proposed Thesis/Dissertation Theory.

Figure 16.3. Example of Using the Tai-Ji Model in Examining Alternative Theoretical Perspectives. 302

METATHEORY IN CIDE

The primary strength of applying the Tai-Ji Model in the theory selection process is it forces graduate students to consider alternative perspectives to the theoretical stance they choose for their research. Acknowledging alternative theoretical viewpoints does not necessarily diminish one’s own theoretical stance but in many cases can enhance one’s standpoint. It also emphasizes the notion that in the social sciences there is often more than one way of examining any one situation. The Tai-Ji Model can easily be used by a team of government planners, development aid officers, and education consultants who are establishing the policy framework for a multi-year education sector development program at the national level. In addition to applying principles of good governance, the team also needs to ensure ownership and buy-in from top-level government policy makers as well as those who will be implementing the education reforms once they become law. Multiple research methods could benefit this type of a development education program. Ample quantitative data at all levels would help inform the team of longitudinal trends and help identify social justice gaps. This quantitative data could be triangulated and substantiated by months of qualitative focus groups, indepth interviews, and observations with groups of students, teachers, administrators, and local and national government education planners. Using the Tai-Ji Model as a filtering mechanism, the team could determine which method or group of methods are most appropriate and under which contexts. The Tai-Ji Model reminds us to reflect on the continuous, border-crossing, and dynamic dimensions of comparative education theories. EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS MODEL (EPAM)

Another way of examining theory in CIDE research is through an education policy lens. The Education Policy Analysis Model (EPAM) was first presented by Jacob and Cheng (2003) and published in the Journal of Education Research (Cheng and Jacob 2005). EPAM offers scholars a way of reviewing current CIDE research from a policy analysis framework and includes four areas of education reform: equity, choice, efficiency, and excellence; and two areas of dichotomous comparison: neoright vs. neo-left and globalization vs. localization (see Figure 16.4). Furthermore, EPAM emphasizes differences of perspectives and practices. Debates between equity and excellence remain constant in many education circles. Ideological struggles also exist between choice and efficiency. The dialectics between Neo-Right and Neo-Left are common in politics and discourse. Moreover, the dynamic relationship between globalization and localization remain at the forefront of education discourse and political reforms worldwide. EPAM is grounded in one or more metatheory or multiple perspectives that help support the four criteria of education policy reform as well as the two dichotomous political comparison areas. Many of these theoretical perspectives are further explained in Jacob and Cheng (2005) and W. James Jacob and Donald B. Holsinger (2009) but will be introduced in the following sections along with definitions of each EPAM component.

303

S.Y. CHENG, W.J. JACOB, AND P. CHEN

Equity Confucius taught that equity of education opportunity could be interpreted into “educating everyone, and discriminating against none” (Tong 1970). Similar to

Figure 16.4 Education Policy Analysis Model. Source: Reprinted from Cheng and Jacob (2005, 146), with permission from the Journal of Education Research.

Confucius, John Rawls (1972) argued in his Theory of Justice the important role positive discrimination can play in education contexts. James S. Coleman (1990) interpreted equality as the opportunity for students to receive equal treatment in regards to access, schooling, and outcome. A complete review of the comparison between the terms equity and equality is found in Jacob and Holsinger (2009) and will not be replicated here. We prefer the term equity rather than equality because it focuses on the “social justice ramifications of education in relation to fairness, justness, and impartiality of its distribution” (4). Equity is grounded in the radical humanist metatheory. Critical, equilibrium, Freirian, and feminist theories all provide avenues for explaining equity according to our definition. Since Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act, Public Law 94–142, the Head Start Program, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the so-called “War on Poverty,” the standpoint of equity and equality of educational opportunity continues to preoccupy education reform efforts in the United States. Two Millennium Development Goals emphasize education equity at the global level: universal education and gender equality. Equity underpins all other aspects of education reform listed in the EPAM framework. Without equity it is difficult if not impossible to achieve ideal levels of choice, efficiency, and excellence. Equity implies that all individuals have an equal opportunity to access education at all levels and to ultimately succeed in their education aspirations. We recognize that this is the ideal and far from reality in

304

METATHEORY IN CIDE

some contexts, but education equity can lead to optimal education reform efforts at local, national, regional and global levels. Choice Choice may be regarded as making a decision according to one’s own desire and will (Billingsley 1994; Devine 2004; Scott 2005). As our second criterion of education policy reform, we also define choice as meaning that students should not be treated as mere objects during instructional procedures; educators must share the decisionmaking power vested in pedagogy, curricula, and school selection with students and their parents. This is supported by several scholars who recognize that, while choice is important and should be shared by multiple stakeholders (Rees 2000; Chapman et al., 2010), it is not always a panacea (Vranish et al., 2010). Although the schoolchoice movement spread rapidly in multiple countries, little time has been taken by CIDE researchers to assess whether the claimed benefits of school choice have actually been realized. Choice remains a political debate issue in many countries and education choice reform efforts often vary depending on the context (Wu 2008; Kim et al., 2009; Forsey 2010; West and Ylonen 2010). There remain great disparities that prevent students from continuing their education even when they would choose to continue if they could. This inequality in education access and attainment is apparent in multiple global regions (Jacob and Holsinger 2009). In China, for instance, only a fraction of the eligible cohort of student graduates from secondary education have access to higher education; this access and attainment restriction is generally exacerbated for ethnic minorities and migrant workers due to several factors that include sociocultural limitations unique to these populations (Jacob 2006; Hawkins, Jacob and Li 2009; Mok 2010). Other countries in East Asia have reached virtual universal higher education—a feat not realized in most other areas of the earth. Students may not want to choose to pursue a higher education degree in Taiwan or South Korea but recognize that without this education their employment opportunities are severely hampered. Gender remains a barrier for many individuals in determining which career path to take or accessing education altogether (Hyer et al., 2009; Maslak 2009). Gender career path barriers differ depending on the geographic and sociocultural contexts that are often difficult to overcome. Like the other three education policy reform criteria, choice can be explained by more than one theoretical perspective. Perhaps the most common metatheory often associated with education or school choice is the functionalist metatheory. Conflict, cultural rationalization, human capital, modernization, neofunctionalist, rational choice, and social choice theories all lay claim to this metatheoretical umbrella and all relate to individual and social choice. Efficiency According to Bosker and colleagues (1999), the conventional concept of education efficiency, adapted from the technical-industrial sector, is inappropriate for public 305

S.Y. CHENG, W.J. JACOB, AND P. CHEN

schools. In the technical industrial sector, there is widespread agreement about desired outcomes and profits. Furthermore, it is difficult to measure school efficiency since the influence of outside environmental and socioeconomic factors on achievement is so significant. Efficiency is increasingly linked to issues of decentralization and privatization as these are market-guided signals that lead to more efficient and effective schools. When we juxtapose choice and efficiency in the discussion of comparative education, we recognize the potential struggles among parental choice, students’ wills, and administrative accountability. Much of the education efficiency literature is based on a functionalist metatheory that includes human capital, social efficiency, and neoinstitutional theories. Radical functionalist perspectives are also important in providing alternative viewpoints that include Marxist and Neo-Marxist theories. Ministries of education often strengthen their pre- and in-service teacher training (PITT) programmes through an emphasis on quality improvement to increase efficiency (Ayodele and Akindutire 2009). Higher education institutions are also under increased pressure from stakeholders to improve their overall efficiency through a series of quality assurance measures (Bigalke and Neubauer 2009). Excellence The concept of education excellence can be interpreted in a number of ways (see Deem and Kelly 1984; Mangieri 1985; Crossley and U.S. Department of Education 1990; Gillies 2008). From a Western perspective, there has been difficulty in defining and agreeing on what constitutes “the good” since the time of ancient Greece. The meaning of excellence implies quality and is thus regarded as one of the most difficult education concepts to define from a global lens. What constitutes excellence in Eastern contexts may not be the same in other regions of the earth. Several scholars recently gathered to deliberate the definition of excellence in CIDE from areas of student learning and curriculum relevance to the economic, social, and cultural demands of local and global forces (Bigalke and Neubauer 2009). Since the era of international competition and marketization, along with the rise in education competition, education excellence is measured or compared by several standardized tests or ranking systems. These include the Trends in International, Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), ranking of world universities, the criteria of excellence tends to become convergent (Cheng 2009; Portnoi, Rust and Bagley 2010). The border between equity and excellence was regarded as well defined and strictly identified. When we review the educational thoughts from the East and the West, how to cross the borderline between equity and excellence becomes a major factor in CIDE. Choice, efficiency, and educational excellence without equity is hollow and prevents the realization of the Millennium Development Goals for universal education and gender equality. Too often excellence, or quality of education, suffers because of limitations in the other three education reform criteria (Inoue and Oketch 2008). Still government policy makers, planners, and educators

306

METATHEORY IN CIDE

are increasingly aware that these limitations must be overcome in order to achieve education quality improvement and excellence in education. Quality and educational excellence can be measured from multiple perspectives and using multiple research methods. Depending on the need, and following a truly Tai-Ji Model selection process, CIDE scholars could argue multiple metatheoretical angles for determining educational excellence. Thus we argue that excellence is grounded in the functionalist, radical functionalist, radical humanist, and humanist metatheories identified in Jacob and Cheng (2005). Globalization versus Localization Multiple CIDE scholars have discussed the dialectic relationship of the global and the local (Stromquist and Monkman 2000; Apodaca 2002; Watson 2002; Rust and Jacob 2005; Abdi et al., 2006). There is an increasing and intensification of worldwide social relationships, in which local happenings are often shaped by events occurring thousands of kilometers away and vice versa. Globalization has been and continues to be defined in many ways (Guillen 2001; de Wit 2002; Mok and Chan 2002; Uvalic-Trumbic, UNESCO and IAU 2002). Mauro Guillen (2001) provides a historical overview of the term globalization and introduces five key questions or “debates” that are worthy of note: (i) is globalization really happening?, (ii) does it produce convergence?, (iii) Does it undermine the authority of nation-states?, (iv) Is globality different from modernity?, and (v) Is a global culture in the making? Henrike Donner (2008) defines globalization as a “set of processes” where the world is rapidly becoming a global society, with homogenous economic, cultural, and technological contexts. Nicholas C. Burbules and Carols Alberto Torres (2000) provide several definitions of globalization around certain dualities. One definition argues that globalization includes two primary forces at work, globalization from above (a process effecting elites within and across national contexts) and globalization from below (drawing from the masses of society). A second definition examines the inevitable conflicts globalization breeds between the global and the local; between the economic and the cultural; and homogenized norms and culture (which is sometimes interpreted as Western or American). At the very least a definition of globalization should include economic, political, and cultural terms. The discourse of globalization can be articulated with both modern and postmodern theories because we are currently involved in an interregnum period between an aging modern and an emerging postmodern era (Best and Kellner 1991; Stromquist and Monkman 2000). Localization is the process of adapting not only language, but also graphics, technology and any other communications media of a region or country (Stromquist and Monkman 2000). Localization refers to an emphasis on traditional ways of knowing, medicine, cultures, traditions, and indigenous languages. Localization can take the form of a general demand for broader popular participation in politics such as the democracy movements in Eastern Europe in the 1980s, the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the 1990s, and many other countries 307

S.Y. CHENG, W.J. JACOB, AND P. CHEN

throughout the world today. Or it can take the form of demands for greater local autonomy, which may lead to decentralization or greater recognition of a local cultural identity and nationalism, as in Japan, New Zealand, and Venezuela. Either way, localization can be a mixed blessing. In the dialectic between the global and the local, scholars introduce the hybrid terms glocalization and glocal which include the dialectic dimensions of global and local in one concept (see for instance Sewpaul 2006; Sarroub 2008; Hatoss 2009). The notion “think global, act local” is a common phase in recent globalization literature and has relevance to EPAM and education policy reform efforts (Friedman 2004; Economist 2006). Sometimes offering an alternative perspective to Immanuel Wallerstein’s (1974) classical World Systems Theory, many recent globalization and localization theories focus on developing a global education norm in terms of structure and the dominant educational paradigm (Hawkins 2007; Portnoi, Rust and Bagley 2010). Neo-Right versus Neo-Left We now look at education reform from two extreme positions, the political concepts of the Right and the Left. The concepts have different historical roots depending on the country. In the United States, the Right has been defined as conservative, middle class, and representative of the dominant group. In opposition to the Right, the Left has focused on radicalism, critical ideology, minorities, and the oppressed. But these mainstream ideological concepts change over time and it is not as easy to ascertain between the Right and the Left (Jacob and Cheng 2005). With the evolution of the dialectical concepts we prefer to use the terms NeoRight and Neo-Left. The Neo-Right is predominantly based on the ideas represented by the dominant group(s), but can also be disaggregated into two subtendencies. The first is called the neoliberal perspective which focuses on market economics and stresses the influence of globalization. Following this vein, educational reforms like school vouchers, magnet schools, charter schools, national curriculum, national tests, and school choice emerged. The second New Right subtendency is the neoconservative perspective that emphasizes traditional values and moral preservation of societal norms. Michael W. Apple (2006, 2009) argues that neoliberals are the most powerful element within the alliance supporting conservative modernization, and efficiency and an “ethic” of cost-benefit analysis are the dominant norms. Furthermore, he stresses that the idea of the “consumer” is crucial when we want to discuss educational reforms, and the idea of “consumer choice” is the guarantor of democracy. Furthermore, he argues that the metaphor of the consumer and the supermarket are actually opposites here, and markets ultimately will distribute resources efficiently and fairly according to effort. Other scholars also acknowledge the significant influence of neoliberalism and neoliberal policies on education in various country contexts (Hill 2001, 2009; Peters 2001; Carney 2003; Harris 2007; Hershock et al., 2007).

308

METATHEORY IN CIDE

Some scholars argue that neoconservative perspectives focus on a resurgence of business values, market-oriented reforms, and the need to return to a common culture that ultimately makes schools more efficient and more responsive to the private sector (Elliott and MacLennan 1994; Apple 2006; Brown 2006). But there is more to the neoconservative standpoint than this argument. Neoconservatives are also concerned about the preservation of traditional values in society, promoting moral education, and defending the traditional definition of the family which is the fundamental unit of society. The neoconservative emphasis on the return to traditional values and “morality” has struck a responsive chord with mainstream society in different global regions (Raulo 2000; Tatto 2003; Barone 2004; Sidorovitch 2005; Zhao 2007; Tan 2008). This perspective is reflected in a recent book edited by David Aspin and Judith Chapman (2007), Values Education and Lifelong Learning: Principles, Policies and Programmes, with contributing chapters on peace education, self-reflection, the Eastern notion of cooperation and communal responsibility in the moral education process, democratic citizenship, responsibility of teachers and administrators to practice moral leadership, and being ethically centered. Another prominent neoconservative book is William Bennett’s (1993) The Book of Virtues, which aims to provide “moral tales” for children to “restore” a commitment to “traditional virtues” such as patriotism, honesty, moral character, and entrepreneurial spirit. Neoconservatives are concerned about defending the right of freedom of religion, speech, and traditional social norms. Education is one of the primary sectors involved in the preservation and furthering of neoconservative values. Domination, exploitation, and ideology critique of Marxism are key issues associated with the Left. Neo-Marxism can be discussed from two perspectives: one is derived from Louis Althuser (1972) and the other from Antonio Gramsci (Mayo 2009). The appeal of an ideological state apparatus by Althuser is regarded as structuralist Marxism that follows Marx’s critique of the base/superstructure model and focuses its attention primarily on social reproduction. The crucial issue from Gramsci’s (1999) theory is cultural hegemony that is attributed into cultural Marxism. Several contemporary sociology of education theories support this perspective (i.e., critical theory, cultural studies, and critical pedagogy) and are influenced by Marxist and Neo-Marxist theories. These perspectives constitute what is known as the Neo-Left. Education is an ideal political nexus for the Neo-Right vs. Neo-Left debate to unfold and this dialectic is reflected in EPAM. This education policy reform framework provides an opportunity for equity-based education to reach its ultimate destination—excellence. But this is not an easy path to forge and is often challenged and sometimes marred by internal and external forces along the way. CONCLUSION

Along with the predominant influence of globalization, international competition, and the fast pace in which technology and other changes occur, CIDE continues to flourish in the twenty-first century. In this article we reviewed multiple CIDE perspectives based on geography, economy, and theory. A critical 309

S.Y. CHENG, W.J. JACOB, AND P. CHEN

discussion of Confucian and Taoist thought in this discourse was introduced emphasizing the latent undercurrent Eastern educational thought has on CIDE. Both the Tai-Ji Model and Education Policy Analysis Model (EPAM) were presented to emphasize new areas of theoretical and policy reform developments in CIDE research and education reforms. Determining which social theory to base a CIDE research project, study, or dissertation on should be an eclectic process and highly determined upon several factors identified in this article. A careful examination of culture, language, history, geographic context, and economy are needed to make a theoretical selection. Using the Tai-Ji Model in the theory and research methods selection or filtering process is helpful for identifying additional and alternative ways of viewing CIDE research and educational phenomena. In some cases one theory is sufficient to base a study upon; in other situations multiple theories are required to fully represent complex phenomena. The Tai-Ji Model enhances theoretical scope and sheds additional light into CIDE’s theoretical closet. The four internal criteria of equity, excellence, choice, and efficiency serve as the nucleus of EPAM. Globalization and localization and the Neo-Right and the Neo-Left serve as perennial dialectics that provide the internal criteria a space to work within. Equity is the key axis upon which all other internal criteria hinge; therefore we emphasize its crucial role in addressing key issues in educational reforms like multiculturalism, social justice, and critical pedagogy. All of these issues focus on the equity of educational opportunity. Placing added emphasis on equity should not diminish in any way the importance of the remaining three criteria. We position excellence as the goal or objective for all educational reform efforts. Similarly, we emphasize the need for reforms to increase student autonomy in relation to school choice, and place measures for responsible and efficient allocation of limited educational resources. Simply examining the internal dynamics of educational reforms prevents many from looking outside the box at the extrinsic forces that are so eminent in educational reform today—globalization, localization, the New Right, and the New Left. The dialectic of globalization and localization has a huge influence on educational reforms. Finally, we conclude that the dialectics from the East and the West and other perspectives are of imminent importance in CIDE research. They reflect the diversity of a complex world and the essential role that education plays in advancing theoretical progress in the social sciences. The Tai-Ji Model and EPAM can serve an important role in advancing this ongoing education initiative toward advancing theory and striving for excellence. REFERENCES Abdi, Ali A., Korbla P. Puplampu, & George J. Sefa Dei, eds. (2006). African Education and Globalization: Critical Perspectives. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, Inc. Althuser, Louis. (1972). “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” In B. R. Cosin (Ed.), Education: Structure and Society (pp. 242–280). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books. Apodaca, Clair. (2002). “The Globalization of Capital in East and Southeast Asia: Measuring the Impact on Human Rights Standards.” Asian Survey, 42(6), 883–905. 310

METATHEORY IN CIDE Apple, Michael W. (2006). Educating the “Right” Way: Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Apple, Michael W. (2009). “Can Critical Education Interrupt the Right?” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(3), 239–251. Aspin, David N., & Judith D. Chapman, eds. (2007). Values Education and Lifelong Learning: Principles, Policies and Programmes. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Ayodele, J. B., & I. O. Akindutire. (2009). “The Production of Quality Teachers to Boost the Efficiency of Nigeria’s Education System.” Research in Education, (81), 43–52. Barone, Thomas N. (2004). “Moral Dimensions of Teacher-Student Interactions in Malaysian Secondary Schools.” Journal of Moral Education, 33(2), 179–196. Bennett, William. (1993). The Book of Virtues: A Treasury of Great Moral Stories. New York: Simon & Schuster. Best, Steven, & Douglas Kellner. (1991). Postmodern Theory. New York: The Guilford Press. Bigalke, Terance W., & Deane E. Neubauer. (2009). Higher Education in Asia/Pacific. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Billingsley, K. Lloyd, ed. (1994). Voices on Choice: The Education Reform Debate. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. Bosker, Roel J., Bert P. M. Creemers, & Sam Stringfield in collaboration with Interuniversitair Centrum voor Onderwijskundig Onderzoek. (1999). Enhancing Educational Excellence, Equity, and Efficiency: Evidence from Evaluations of Systems and Schools in Change. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Brown, Wendy. (2006). “American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and De-Democratization.” Political Theory, 34(6), 690–714. Burbules, Nicholas C., & Carlos Alberto Torres, eds. (2000). Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. New York: Routledge. Carney, Stephen. (2003). “Globalisation, Neo-liberalism and the Limitations of School Effectiveness Research in Developing Countries: The Case of Nepal.” Globalisation, Societies & Education. 1(1), 87–101. Chapman, Christopher, Geoff Lindsay, Daniel Muijs, Alma Harris, Elisabeth Arweck, & Janet Goodall. (2010). “Governance, Leadership, and Management in Federations of Schools.” School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 21(1), 53–74. Cheng, Sheng Yao. (2009). “Quality Assurance in Higher Education: The Taiwan Experience since the 1990s.” In Terance W. Bigalke and Deane E. Neubauer (Ed.), Higher Education in Asia/Pacific: Quality and the Public Good. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Cheng, Sheng Yao, & W. James Jacob. (2005). “Toward the Future of Education: The EPAM Approach to Education Reform.” Journal of Education Research, 129(1), 145–154. Coleman, James S. (1990). Equality and Achievement in Education. San Francisco: Westview. Cronin, Peter. (2008). “What’s in a Name? The Dilemma of South-South Transfer.” Society for International Education, 5(1), 1–12. Crossley, Kathy, & U.S. Department of Education. (1990). Excellence in Education: Blue Ribbon Schools Program. Schools Recognized 1982–83 through 1989–90. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Deem, Rosemary, & Gail P. Kelly. (1984). Excellence, Reform and Equity in Education: An International Perspective. Buffalo, NY: Comparative Education Center, Faculty of Educational Studies, State University of New York at Buffalo; Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto. Devine, Nesta. (2004). Education and Public Choice: A Critical Account of the Invisible Hand in Education. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. de Wit, Hans. (2002). Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States of America and Europe: A Historical, Comparative, and Conceptual Analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Donner, Henrike. (2008). Domestic Goddesses: Maternity, Globalization and Middle-Class Identity in Contemporary India. Aldershot, UK; Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Economist. (2006). “Think Global, Act Local.” Economist, 379(8480), 73–74. Elliott, Brian, & David MacLennan. (1994). “Education, Modernity and Neo-Conservative School Reform in Canada, Britain and the US.” British Journal of Sociology of Education, 15(2), 165–185. Forsey, Martin G. (2010). “Publicly Minded, Privately Focused: Western Australian Teachers and School Choice.” Teaching & Teacher Education, 26(1), 53–60. 311

S.Y. CHENG, W.J. JACOB, AND P. CHEN Friedman, Thomas L. (2004). “Think Global, Act Local.” New York Times, June 6, 13. Gillies, Donald. (2008). “Quality and Equality: The Mask of Discursive Conflation in Education Policy Texts.” Journal of Education Policy, 23(6), 685–699. Gramsci, Antonio. (1999). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Trans. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. New York: International Publishers. Guillen, Mauro F. (2001). “Is Globalization Civilizing, Destructive or Feeble? A Critique of Five Key Debates in the Social Science Literature.” Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 235–260. Harris, Suzy. (2007). The Governance of Education: How Neo-liberalism Is Transforming Policy and Practice. New York: Continuum Press. Hatoss, Aniko. (2009). “Imagining Multilingual Schools: Languages in Education and Glocalization.” Studies in Continuing Education, 31(2), 203–206. Hawkins, John N. (2007). “The Intractable Dominant Educational Paradigm.” In Peter D. Hershock, Mark Mason, and John N. Hawkins (Eds.) Changing Education: Leadership, Innovation and Development in a Globalizing Asia Pacific (pp. 137–162). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer and Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong (CERC). Hawkins, John N., W. James Jacob, & Wenli Li. (2009). “Higher Education in China: Access, Equity and Equality.” In Donald B. Holsinger and W. James Jacob (Ed.), Inequality in Education: Comparative and International Perspectives (pp. 215–239). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer/CERC. Hershock, Peter D., Mark Mason, & John N. Hawkins, eds. (2007). Changing Education: Leadership, Innovation and Development in a Globalizing Asia Pacific. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer/CERC. Hill, David. (2001). “State Theory and the Neo-Liberal Reconstruction of Schooling and Teacher Education: A Structuralist Neo-Marxist Critique of Postmodernist, Quasi-Postmodernist, and Culturalist Neo-Marxist Theory.” British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(1), 135–155. Hill, David. (2009). “Does Capitalism Inevitably Increase inequality?” In Donald B. Holsinger and W. James Jacob (Ed.), Inequality in Education: Comparative and International Perspectives (pp. 59–85). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer/CERC. Holsinger, Donald B., & W. James Jacob, eds. (2009). Inequality in Education: Comparative and International Perspectives. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer/CERC. Hyer, Karen E., Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill, Susan J. Peters, Yodit Solomon, Heather Thomas, & Carol Ward. (2009). “Gender Inequalities in Educational Participation.” In Donald B. Holsinger and W. James Jacob (Ed.), Inequality in Education: Comparative and International Perspectives (pp. 128–148). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer/CERC. Inkeles, Alex, & Donald B. Holsinger. (1973). “Education and Individual Modernity.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 14(3&4), 157–162. Inoue, Kazuma, & Moses Oketch. (2008). “Implementing Free Primary Education Policy in Malawi and Ghana: Equity and Efficiency Analysis.” Peabody Journal of Education, 83(1): 41–70. Ish-Shalom, Piki. (2006). “Theory Gets Real, and the Case for a Normative Ethic: Rostow, Modernization Theory, and the Alliance for Progress.” International Studies Quarterly, 50(2), 287–311. Jacob, W. James. (2006). “Social Justice in Chinese Higher Education: Issues of Equity and Access.” International Review of Education, 52(1), 149–169. Jacob, W. James, & Sheng Yao Cheng. (2003). “Toward the Future of Education: The EPAM Approach to Educational Reform.” Paper presented at the American Education Research Association National Conference, Chicago, 23 April 2003. Jacob, W. James, & Sheng Yao Cheng. (2005). “Mapping Paradigms and Theories in Comparative, International, and Development Education (CIDE) Research.” In David P. Baker and Alexander W. Wiseman (Ed.), Global Trends in Educational Policy (pp. 221–258). New York: Elsevier. Jacob, W. James, & Donald B. Holsinger. (2009). “Inequality in Education: A Critical Analysis.” In Donald B. Holsinger and W. James Jacob (Ed.), Inequality in Education: Comparative and International Perspectives (pp. 1–33). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer/CERC. Jacob, W. James, & Yafflo W. Ouattara. (2009). “HIV Education in Emergency, Conflict, and PostConflict Contexts.” Prospects, 39(4), 359–381. Jacobsen, K. H. (2009). “Patterns of Co-Authorship in International Epidemiology.” Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 63(8), 665–669.

312

METATHEORY IN CIDE Kim, Jiyun, Stephen L. DesJardins, & Brian P. McCall. (2009). “Exploring the Effects of Student Expectations about Financial Aid on Postsecondary Choice: A Focus on Income and Racial/Ethnic Differences.” Research in Higher Education, 50(8), 741–774. Lin, Y. 2009. The Wisdom of Confucius II. Taipei: Cheng Chung Book Co. Maddison, Angus. (1983). “A Comparison of Levels of GDP Per Capita in Developed and Developing Countries, 1700–1980.” Journal of Economic History, 43(1), 27–41. Mangieri, John N. (1985). Excellence in Education. Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University Press. Maslak, Mary Ann. (2009). “Using Enrollment and Attainment in Formal Education to Understand the Case of India.” In Donald B. Holsinger and W. James Jacob (Ed.), Inequality in Education: Comparative and International Perspectives (pp. 240–260). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer/CERC. Mayo, Peter. (2009). “Editorial: Antonio Gramsci and Educational Thought.” Educational Philosophy & Theory, 41(6), 601–604. Mbabuike, Michael C. (2004). “The Unfolding North/South Relationship: Africa in the Scheme of Things.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 29(2), 614–617. Mok, Ka Ho, ed. (2010). Paradigm Shift or Business as Usual: The Search for New Governance in Higher Education in Asia. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Mok, Ka Ho, & David Kin-keung Chan, eds. (2002). “Introduction.” Ka Ho Mok and David Kin-keung Chan (Ed.), Globalization and Education: The Quest for Quality Education in Hong Kong (pp. 1–19). Hong Kong: Honk Kong University Press. Paulston, Rolland G. (1999). “Mapping Comparative Education after Postmodernity.” Comparative Education Review, 43(4), 438–463. Paulston, Rolland G. (2000). “Imagining Comparative Education: Past, Present, and Future.” Compare, 30(3), 353–367. Peters, Michael. (2001). “Environmental Education, Neo-liberalism and Globalisation: the ‘New Zealand experiment’.” Educational Philosophy & Theory, 33(2), 203–216. Peters, Susan J. (2009). “Inequalities in Education for People with Disabilities.” In Donald B. Holsinger and W. James Jacob (Ed.), Inequality in Education: Comparative and International Perspectives (pp. 149–171). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer/CERC. Phillips, David, & Michele Schweisfurth. (2008). Comparative and International Education: An Introduction to Theory, Method and Practice. London: Continuum. Portnoi, Laura M., Val D. Rust, & Sylvia S. Bagley, eds. (2010). Higher Education, Policy, and the Global Competition Phenomenon. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Raulo, Marianna. (2000). Moral Education and Development. Journal of Social Philosophy, 31(4), 507–551. Rees, Nina Shokraii. (2000). School Choice 2000 Annual Report. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation 2000. Rostow, Walt Whithman. (1960). The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rust, Val D. (1996). “From Modern to Postmodern Ways of Seeing Social and Educational Change.” In Rolland G. Paulston (Ed.), Social Cartography: Mapping Ways of Seeing Education and Social Change. New York: Garland Publishing. Rust, Val D. (2004). “Postmodernism and Globalization: The State of the Debate.” Paper presented at the Comparative and International Education Society Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, 10 March 2004. Rust, Val D., & W. James Jacob. (2005). “Globalisation and Educational Policy Shifts.” In Joseph Zajda (Ed.), International Handbook on Globalisation, Education and Policy Research: Global Pedagogies and Policies (pp. 235–252). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Sarroub, Loukia K. (2008). “Living ‘Glocally’ With Literacy Success in the Midwest.” Theory Into Practice, 47(1), 59–66. Scott, Janelle T. (2005). School Choice and Diversity: What the Evidence Says. New York: Teachers College Press. Shen, J., Z. Fu, Z. Xu, S. Hao, J. Sun, & Ren min ti yu chu ban she. (1988). Tai ji quan quan shu (Di 1 ban. ed.). Beijing: Ren min ti yu chu ban she: Xin hua shu dian Beijing fa xing suo fa xing. Sewpaul, Vishanthie. (2006). “The Global-Local Dialectic: Challenges for African Scholarship and Social Work in a Post-Colonial World.” British Journal of Social Work, 36(3), 419–434.

313

S.Y. CHENG, W.J. JACOB, AND P. CHEN Sidorovitch, Anna. (2005). “Moral Education in Contemporary Belarus: Return to a Soviet Past?” Journal of Moral Education, 34(4), 479–489. Stromquist, Nelly P. (1996). “Mapping Gendered Spaces in Third World Educational Interventions.” In Rolland G. Paulston (Ed.), Social Cartography: Mapping Ways of Seeing Social and Educational Change. New York: Garland Publishing. Stromquist, Nelly P., & Karen Monkman, eds. (2000). Globalization and Education: Integration and Contestation across Cultures. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Tan, Charlene. (2008). “Two Views of Education: Promoting Civic and Moral Values in Cambodia Schools.” International Journal of Educational Developmen,t 28(5), 560–570. Tatto, Maria Teresa. (2003). “Examining Mexico and US Values Education in a Global Context.” Journal of Beliefs & Values: Studies in Religion & Education, 24(2), 219–237. Tong, K. M. (1970). Educational Ideas of Confucius. Taipei: Youth Book Store. UNESCO. (1995). “Cultural Production: The Gap between Developed and Developing Countries.” UNESCO Sources No. 74, 12. UNESCO. (2001). Inclusion in Education: The Participation of Disabled Learners. Paris: UNESCO. United Nations Population Division (UNPD). (2009). World Population Prospects, The 2008 Revision. New York: UNPD. Uvalic-Trumbic, Stamenka, UNESCO, and International Association of Universities (IAU). (2002). Globalization and the Market in Higher Education: Quality, Accreditation and Qualifications. Paris: UNESCO. Vranish, P., Rose, S., Clark, J., Slattery, J. E., Bucy, A., Hambrook, J., et al., (2010). “School Choice is No Panacea.” American School Board Journal, 197, 14–15. Wallerstein, Immanuel. (1974). The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press. Watson, Hilbourne A. (2002). “Globalization as Capitalism in the Age of Electronics: Issues of Popular Power, Culture, Revolution, and Globalization from Below.” Latin American Perspectives, 29(6), 32–43. West, Anne, & Annamari Ylonen. (2010). “Market-Oriented School Reform in England and Finland: School Choice, Finance and Governance.” Educational Studies, 36(1), 1–12. World Bank. (2009). HIV and AIDS Strategic and Operational Planning Capacity Building Workshops in Five Global Regions. Washington, DC: World Bank. Wu, Xiaoxin. (2008). “The Power of Positional Competition and Market Mechanism: A Case Study of Recent Parental Choice Development in China.” Journal of Education Policy, 23(6), 595–614. Zhang, Dainian, & Edmond Ryden. (2002). Key Concepts in Chinese Philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Zhao, Yong. (2007). “China and the Whole Child.” Educational Leadership, 64(8), 70–73.

314